dismissed EB-1A Case: Dance And Choreography

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12195658 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 1, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a dancer and choreographer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A). This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that she satisfied at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this 
classification. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal of that decision . The Petitioner now submits a 
combined motion to reopen and reconsider, together with new evidence, and asserts that she meets 
two additional criteria as well as those we decided in her favor in our appellate decision . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss both motions. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported 
by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application oflaw or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that 
the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the initial 
decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action . Thus, to merit reconsideration, a 
petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of a properly 
completed Form I-290B , Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause 
for granting the motion . We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable requirements . See 
8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens with extraordinary ability. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue before us on motion is whether the Petitioner has either submitted new facts sufficient to 
warrant reopening her appeal and/or established that our decision to dismiss her appeal was based on an 
incorrect application of USCIS law or policy. 
A. AAO Decision 
In our appellate decision, we acknowledged the Petitioner's claim that she meets four of the ten 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), summarized below: 
• (iii), Published material in major trade publications or other major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others in her field; 
• (vii), Display of her work in artistic exhibitions or showcases; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director had concluded that the Petitioner satisfied the criteria related to published materials and 
judging the work of others. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (iv). We also determined that the Petitioner 
had met two criteria; however, we withdrew the Director's conclusion that she had submitted sufficient 
evidence to meet the published materials criterion. We concluded that the Director had erred with respect 
to the display of her work at artistic showcases and determined that she did in fact meet that criterion. 
On motion, the Petitioner addresses the criteria relating to published materials and leading or critical roles 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (viii). Specifically, she asserts that we overlooked certain evidence that 
was previously submitted and states that she is submitting new evidence establishing that she meets one 
2 
or both of these criteria. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not submitted new facts 
or evidence establishing that she meets any additional criteria, nor has she shown that our prior 
decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which class[fication is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In our appellate decision, we reversed the Director's determination that the Petitioner had satisfied this 
criterion. We noted that, while the Petitioner had submitted copies of articles from various sources, a 
substantial number of them did not qualify as being about her, as this regulation requires. Although 
we concluded that four articles were about the Petitioner and relating to her work, we noted that one 
article from al !newspaper did not identify the author of the material and that none of the articles 
about her were accompanied by sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they qualify as major trade 
publications or other major media. Evidence submitted under this criterion should establish that the 
circulation or distribution ( on-line or in print) is high compared to the circulation statistics of other 
publications. 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner disagrees with our conclusion and emphasizes her submission of articles that 
appeared in OnStage Blog, Madrid Diario, El Diario Vasco and Dance Informa, as well as television 
appearances on TV GLOBO, CUNY TV and New York 4. We acknowledge that we did not 
individually discuss every document submitted in support of this criterion in our decision; however, 
we considered each one in determining whether any of the Petitioner's evidence met all elements of 
this regulation criterion. 
With respect to the OnStage Blog article referenced on appeal, we note this 2019 article post-dates the 
filing of this petition in May 2018. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for 
the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C .F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ). While this evidence is new, it cannot establish that the Petitioner 
met this criterion as of the date of filing, even ifwe determined that the article was published in major 
media. 
With respect to the articles that appeared in the Spanish newspapers Madrid Diario and El Diario 
Vasco, we note that the Petitioner previously submitted rankings for these publications from 
Similar Web. This evidence indicated that Madrid Diario has a country rank of 2,819 and El Diario 
Vas co has a country rank of 341. The Petitioner correctly notes that we previously overlooked the fact 
that the original Spanish language article from Madrid Diario identifies the author of the material. 
However, the Petitioner has not established with the current motion that Madrid Diario qualifies as 
major media in Spain. She submits a document from an unidentified source that provides some 
background regarding this newspaper as well as a partially translated screenshot from the Spanish­
language website Auditoria which appears to provide information about the number of times the 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14. 7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html 
3 
Madrid Diario article about her was viewed. However, this new evidence does not establish that 
Madrid Diario qualifies as a major medium when compared to other publications. The Petitioner also 
claims that Diario Vasco, which she describes as a daily newspaper in Spain's I l1xovince, 
meets the "major media" element of this criterion. Although her brief on motion cites some additional 
statistics regarding this newspaper's readership, she has not supported these figures with any 
additional comparative evidence, and instead refers to the Similar Web information that we previously 
reviewed and found to be insufficient. 
Finally, with respect to Dance Informa, we note that the Petitioner previously described this 
publication as "an online platform" that "provides all the information and news dancers need to keep 
current in the industry." The Petitioner previously provided statistics from Similar Web indicating that 
the website has a U.S. ranking of 813,159 and a category ranking of2,698. On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains that this publication qualifies as major media and provides information regarding its 
subscriber numbers and the number of visitors to its website which is not supported by any independent 
evidence. The Petitioner also states that Dance Informa "has been ranked #4 on top Dance Magazines 
in the US" by "Feedspot." While she submits a document with the heading "Top 10 Dance Magazines 
and Publications to Follow in 2020" which includes Dance 111/orma, the document does not identify 
the source of this list or what criteria were used to compile it. 
In addition to the print media discussed above, the Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that she has 
appeared on TV Globo, CUNY TV, and another local New York television channel. With respect to 
her TV Globo appearance, the Petitioner submits a one-page document that includes five photos and/or 
still shots taken from a video interview, and what appears to be an excerpt from an e-mail from an 
individual identified as a "news producer" pitching the idea of a story about the choreography in the 
movie La La Land. The Petitioner's brief contains information regarding Brazilian television network 
TV Globo, describing it as "the largest commercial TV network in Latin America," but the record does 
not contain any independent evidence regarding the network or even identify the specific program for 
which the Petitioner was interviewed. Further, the submitted screen shots are not accompanied by a 
transcript of the interview, and the record does not establish when it aired. The other two television 
appearances she highlights in her appeal were aired on local New York television stations. Although 
she submits screenshots taken from the video interviews, she has not established that either appearance 
aired on "major media" and has not submitted transcripts of the interviews. The Petitioner has not 
established that her television appearances meet all elements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Overall, the Petitioner has not submitted new evidence on motion that establishes that she meets the 
published materials criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Further, she has not established that our 
previous determination with respect to this criterion was incorrect based on the evidence of record at 
the time of our decision, or that it involved an incorrect application of the law or USCIS policy to the 
facts presented. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
4 
With respect to this criterion, a title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a 
petitioner's role is or was, in fact, leading. 2 Regarding a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate 
that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the 
organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the 
performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. In addition, this criterion 
requires that the organizations or establishments must be recognized as having a distinguished 
reputation, which is marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence. 3 
In our appellate decision, we acknowledged the Petitioner's leading role as co-founder and co-artistic 
director of I I but concluded that she had not submitted evidence to demonstrate that 
I I enjoys a distinguished reputation. We also noted that while the Petitioner provided 
evidence that she had served as a dance instructor for several dance schools, she had not shown how 
her part-time faculty positions were leading or critical to these organizations, or submitted sufficient 
ob·ective evidence of these or anizations' reputations. Finally, we acknowledged a letter from the 
.__ ________________ .__;c::..:o;;.;:;n:c:fc:;;;irc.:cm:;;;;;i;;;;,ng that the Petitioner had served as a "team leader" 
and "Rehearsal Director" for its annual .__~ __ _. event. However, we found that the letter did not 
establish how her activities for this event amounted to a leading or critical role for this organization. 
For example, we noted that the record indicated that there were several team leaders and rehearsal 
directors assigned to serve as assistants to choreographers. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence she submitted in support of this criterion was 
"largely overlooked" and contends that she submitted testimonial evidence that clearly detailed her 
"irreplaceable role" in several organizations. 
As noted, we acknowledged the Petitioner's leading role as co-founder of~------~but 
found insufficient evidence of this dance company's distinguished reputation. In her brief on motion, 
the Petitioner emphasizes that her dance company has been very active since 2011, "producing, touring 
and doing shows, events, videos." She emphasizes the company's longevity, and its appearance at 
"reputable and known festivals inl I' including some that are invitation only and some 
with very competitive application processes, such as the '-------------~ 
With respect to the referenced testimonial evidence, the Petitioner notes thatl lrefers 
to I I as "an acclaimed" dance company with impressive accomplishments that 
include "award winning choreography, commissions, foll length shows." I I describes 
as a "crowd favorite" that receives "great feedback from audiences."I I 
1======·1 A_rt___,istic Director forl I states thatl hs the only professional 
dance company to be presented on two different seasons of the Open Series." He emphasizes the 
"creativity, originality and technical accomplishment" of the company's work. 
The Petitioner also submits two new reference letters on apoeal, froml I ofi I and 
professional dancer and choreographer I r Although they mention the Petitioner's 
leading role wit~ I their statements do not offer any new information regarding this 
dance company's distinguished reputation in the field. The testimonial evidence provided, while 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
3 Id at 10-11. 
5 
complimentary to the Petitioner and her dance company, does not establish the company's 
distinguished reputation. 
As noted in our appellate decision, the Petitioner also relied on documentation ofl l's 
performances in support of her claim that it enjoys a distinguished reputation among dance companies. 
While the company's performances are well documented and the testimonials discussed above indicate 
that the company has received praise from members of the dance community, there is insufficient 
corroborating evidence of the .__ ______ ____.s standing in the field to establish that it 1s 
recognized as having a distinguished reputation "marked by eminence, distinction or excellence." 
The Petitioner also asserts that she has been "a critical faculty member of.__ ________ ____. 
Company since 2015" and that she has provided chorography, dance instruction and umque 
performances on behalf of the company. A previously-submitted letter from I I states 
that she applied to his company as a dancer in 2015 and joined the company as an understudy; he does 
not refer to her as a "critical faculty member" but notes that she currently assists with teaching and 
coaching repertory to new members. He indicates that, as of O 2019, the Petitioner is a female 
soloist, and he states that he currently considers her a "key leader in the company both as a dancer and 
an inspiration/subject to create new pieces for the company."! I also states that the 
Petitioner "contributes significantly to the company as a dancer" and notes that audiences attend events 
specifically to see her perform. The record contains a media review of.__ ________ __. 
Company's! 120191 F show which briefly mentions the Petitioner's performance 
with L I in a piece titled j t but does not include evidence suggesting that she 
was serving as the organization's lead dancer, particularly given that the record reflects that she has 
been running her own dance company. A screenshot from the company's website simply identifies 
her as one of the dancers in the company. 
This evidence does not establish that the Petitioner had served in a lead with this dance company at 
the time of filing. Further, although I I uses the terms "leader" and "critical" in his letter, 
he does not explain in detail how she contributed in way that has been of significant importance to the 
outcome of his dance company's activities. For example, while he states that audiences are drawn to 
her performances, the record does not demonstrate her impact on attendance at his company's shows, 
such as by showing higher receipts for programs in which she is featured. Vague letters that simply 
repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how the petitioner's roles were leading or critical 
are not persuasive evidence. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy 
the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), aff1d, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); see also Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 
10729, *l, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). 
The Petitioner further emphasizes that she identified "numerous dance studios where she taught both 
ongoing classes as well as workshops and master classes." She mentions several of them as being 
"best in the world and ranked amongst the top by several sources ... which implies that the hiring 
process is highly competitive and only the best teachers and instructors are offered positions." 
However, the issue before us in evaluating this criterion is not the competitive nature of obtaining an 
instructor position with these studios, but whether the role itself was leading or critical. As we 
emphasized in our appellate decision, serving on the faculty of an institution is not inherently a critical 
6 
role and does not demonstrate that she significantly contributed to the outcome of an organization's 
activities as a whole. 
On motion, the Petitioner specifically references her role with California dance school I , I I I A letter from this dance school's director! I confirms that the 
Petitioner has twice choregraphed pieces for its dancers participating in thel I I I, which is described as a "worldwide ballet competition." She indicates that both pieces 
resulted in successes for the school's participating dancers, with one piece shared at the event's finals 
in I I and the other winning a third-place finish regionally. I I states that this 
recognition from I l"helps us with marketing and in our standing as a reputable studio." However, 
the letter does not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's contribution of two chore graphed pieces 
was so significant that it has critical to the outcome of the organization's activities as a whole. Further, 
the record does not include independent evidence that .__ ___________ ___, has a 
distinguished reputation. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that she believes "the AAO is not acknowledging the leading role [she] has 
in [the I I." She states that 'I t would not have been possible without her contributions to 
"creating, teaching and running rehearsals." However, as discussed in our previous decision, the 
evidence does not establish that she held a leading role for I I or that her contributions to thel I 
Qvent were critical to the outcome ofl las a whole. Letters froml lconfirmed that she was 
one of several team leaders and rehearsal directors assisting the event's choreographer. While the I I 
letters conveyed that she is a valued member of the organization and an "important asset," they do not 
support the Petitioner's claim thatl I would not have been possible without her or that her 
activities forl I amount to a leading or critical role for this organization. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not submitted new evidence on motion to establish 
that she meets the leading or critical roles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Further, she has 
not established that our previous determination with respect to this criterion was incorrect based on 
the evidence of record at the time of our decision, or that it involved an incorrect application of the 
law or USCIS policy to the facts presented. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that we incorrectly applied law or policy in our previous decision, nor 
does her new evidence on motion establish that she meets at least three criteria. Accordingly, the 
motions will be dismissed. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii) requires the motion to be "[a]ccompanied by 
a statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of 
any judicial proceedings and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." The 
Petitioner, however, did not include the required statement. For this additional reason, the Petitioner's 
motions do not meet the applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
7